Sunday, June 03, 2007

This is getting ludicrous, after this readers no more posting on religion but I have to post this guy awnser to the article below. It is only fair

04/06: Response to‘Theantijihadist’ – How to respect your fellow ManCategory: GeneralPosted by: Raja PetraFarouk A. Peruwww.jidal.orgThis response is aimed at ‘Theantijihadist’ response to my comments on his anti-Islamic fascism.At the outset, I would like declare that I do not condone the acts of Muslims which go against the teachings of Prophet Muhammad. Rather, I condemn them. ‘Theantijihadist’ is unable to appreciate the existence of Muslims with differing opinions to the fundamentalist type, so intent is he on condemning an entire pan-race and socio-culture. However, I call upon the discerning reader, for the good of humanity, it’s vital for us to not practise the racism of either ‘Theantijihadist’ or the Muslim fundamentalists. Judge people individually for their peacefulness towards us, not the labels they wear.To the ‘Theantijihadist’, please refer to the questions I have systematically laid out for you at the tail of his response. Lets not ‘forget’ any more points, please.‘Theantijihadist’: First out the gate, my opponent is correct. Islam is not just the Quran. The Quran cannot be understood in a vacuum. Islam can and must be judged by other sources besides the Quran, such as the Hadith, the actions of its followers, and most of all, the actions of its founder. This range of sources can give critical insight into the worthiness of the ideology that Mr. Farouk holds so dear.Farouk: This is quite typical of anti-Islamic fascists. Instead of analysing how the Quran itself lays the foundational structure of information, they choose to dictate to Muslims how Islam should be. Does ‘Theantijihadist’ know of the divergent opinions within the house of Islam? Does he know that information is being revised even during the present day? This is why we have the Quran. All information about the Prophet must be scrutinised in light of his adherence to the Quran. The Quran calls itself the criteria but ‘Theantijihadist’ will never acknowledge this, because it will cause detriment to his agenda.‘Theantijihadist’ : Mr. Farouk talks about (in his words) the ‘apostasy law.’ This is an interesting euphemism for a barbaric law that calls for the outright murder of people solely on a religious pretext. In a massive ongoing and unchallenged violation of human rights, ‘only’ six Islamic countries officially engage in the execution of apostates. One of these six is Saudi Arabia, the heart of Islam and the location of the two holiest sites to Muslims, and also the home of some of the most revered and highest authorities in Islam. These clerics and other Saudi scholars have always called for apostates to be put to death if they do not recant their kafir beliefs. What a delightful state of affairs this is.Farouk: I call it ‘apostasy law’ for the sake of convenience. To me, it is in fact murder and yes a violation of human rights. It is indeed a sorry state of affairs but for the second time, may I point out to you a few things. Perhaps this time they may register:1. These laws are NOT from Islam. I explained above how the Islamic information system works and I’ve said to you, if Islam commands this law, kindly refute my article.2. It IS possible in the Quranic world-view, to be acceptors of revelation in name only and yet one’s actions contravene that (PAS is a very good example of this). Such people will face debasement in this life and the next. So the Quran DISSOCIATES itself from people who in practice do not follow its commands. Try to understand that, please.‘Theantijihadist’ : As for the other 51 countries in Dar al Islam, it is a fact that apostates in virtually every Muslim country face sanctions of some kind, official and/or unofficial (including Malaysia). These sanctions against apostates range from fines, imprisonment with or without trial, torture, discrimination, forced exile, financial ruin from loss of livelihoods, loss of property, death threats and intimidation. Clearly, being an apostate from Islam in an Islamic state is very dangerous indeedFarouk: How is it a ‘fact’ ? Have you personally visited these countries and met everyone from a Muslim socio-culture who rejected Islam? I’ve personally met Christian converts from Turkey , Morocco and Tunisia who have had no problems becoming Christian in their home country. Indonesia has no such issue either. Please do not hide behind these sweeping generalisations. What you’re actually trying to do is to prove something by quoting platitudes. Provide actual evidence, not just the expression of your hate for a pan-race.‘Theantijihadist’ :This universal Muslim persecution of its apostates exists for a reason. The teachings of Islam are very explicit on this point. According to Bukhari (volume 9, book 88, no. 6922), Islam’s prophet ordered flatly, “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.” Also, there is another hadith text that says, “It is not lawful to kill a man who is a Muslim except for one of the three reasons: Kufr (disbelief) after accepting Islam.....” (Abu Dawud). Perhaps the Quran doesn’t explicitly call for apostates to be murdered, but the actions of Mohammed, his example, clearly show otherwise. In addition, all five major schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that a sane male apostate must be executed. A female apostate, it turns out, gets a break. Some schools say female apostates should only be imprisoned for life.Farouk: Once again, ‘Theantijihadist’ has displayed an ignorance of Islam’s information system. Why does he think the Quran is called ‘the criteria’ This means that all information must be judged accordingly. Even the four Imams of jurisprudence instructed their followers to change their views if evidence comes to light.The fact that there is disagreement about this punishment shows that by the Quranic criteria, this cannot be a punishment from God.And if you feel the Quran implicitly calls for the punishment of apostates, kindly bring forth your evidence. I have written an article about it if you care to answer it.‘Theantijihadist’: Now, on to Islam’s bloody-minded manual for endless war, the Quran. I submit these Quranic verses for your consideration:Farouk : Thanks. I will now ask you some questions about these verses you quoted so we can see what you understand by them as compared to what the Quran means by them:1. Who are ‘al-kafiroon’ in the Quran?2. In your system of ethos, should an oppressed nation just sit back and watch colonialists come and wipe out their civilisation?‘Theantijihadist’: I’m positive that Mr. Farouk will argue that these verses are ‘taken out of context’, or aren’t translated correctly, or some other such nonsense. Since I’m just an ignorant infidel, how dare I judge his precious Quran? Well, judge it I do and judge it I will continue to do. And I am not alone in this; that I can promise you.Farouk: Maybe you should save your dramatic vehemence for a Bollywood film audition. The Quran doesn’t belong to me and you can judge it all you want and I’m sure you will find much relief in identifying a great ‘Other’ for civilisation as Hitler did and the Bush regime does. My intention in pursuing this is to reveal the paucity of your arguments. Here are more questions, for you:1. Do you feel that the Quran does not deserve to be quoted in the correct manner?2. How would you respond if I said that the verses you quoted are taken out of context?‘Theantijihadist’: Mr. Farouk brings up Mr. Hitler, whose tome continues to sell rather well in the Muslim world to this day.Farouk: Once again, if you pay careful attention, you will find that I condemn evil, no matter who performs it. I have no notions of the so-called ‘Muslim brotherhood’ as an ideology because the Quran talks about the oneness of the ummah of humanity. Hitler, Muslim fundamentalists, and yourself have a commonality in your world-views, which is to write off an entire race of people based on what miscreants from that race have done. Muslim fundamentalists love to quote from the Talmud the way you quote from the Quran so the people you’re ‘anti’ are really your brothers in arms against the whole of humanity.‘Theantijihadist’: Islam is the religion that justifies in its name some of the most horrible inhumanities imaginable, such as these.Farouk: I invite the reader to please scrutinise the racist nature of this individual’s discourse. He quotes one man (Ghazi al-Qusaibi) and then proceeds to say ISLAM justifies. In other words, whatever Muslims speak against barbarisms (and be sure that there are many, including myself), ‘Theantijihadist’ chooses not to hear them because it’s not expedient to humanise your enemy. Before the wholesale invasion of the middle east, whether to fulfil a prophecy or just plainly to rob the land and the people, they need to justify that these ‘people’ aren’t really people anyway. ‘Theantijihadist’ has the very same mentality of the perpetrators of Abu Gharib, Haditha , 9/11 and 7/7 which is simply ‘these people are not worth my discerning eye. They are all the same’.‘Theantijihadist’:As usual, Mr. Farouk plays the ‘race’ card upon anyone that attacks his ‘faith’. So, I’m a racist by attacking Islam, even though “Islam” is not, repeat not, a race (and this even Mr. Farouk freely admits).Farouk: Racism is not a ‘card’ but a reality. There are noxious, evil individuals who judge an entire pan-race (a collection of races) based on the acts of some of its members. Such individuals assume to take interpretative authority in order to condemn their fellow man. This is how the Bush regime managed to convince the American public that war needed to be waged in Iraq which is basically: people who look, speak and are culturally the same must be the ideologically the same. You’re a racist not for attacking Islam but for condemning an entire civilisation based on your scant (if that) research into the corpus Islamica.‘Theantijihadist’:Usually, the accusations of being a ‘Nazi’ or ‘fascist’ follow almost immediately before or after we’re called ‘racists.’ It’s all part of the script when Muslims respond to any attacks on their beliefs. And here, Mr. Farouk does not disappoint. Ad hominem attacks do not an argument make. But what else can we expect from the self-appointed defenders of Islam?Farouk: No, I am all for criticism of the Quran AND Islam. Questioning leads to thinking and thinking is a good thing. What I am against is the racism against the socio-culture of Islam. THAT is what makes you a racist, the fact that you lump an entire socio-culture, 1.2 billion people whom you’ve never met along with Muslim fundamentalists simply because they share a certain socio-culture. ‘Theantijihadist’: “By their fruits ye shall know them,” says the Bible. And Islam’s bitter fruits are out in the open, for all to see.Farouk: Very good. This now leads to two streams of arguments which I articulate below:1. The Quran DISSOCIATES those who refuse to follow its instructions. The apostasy law is a refusal of the Quranic injunction of the total freedom of religion. So how can you call the upholders of that punishment as ‘your fruits’ here?2. Would you call Christian Fundamentalists who blow up abortion clinics as fruits of Christianity? Would you call Mr Baruch Goldstien as a fruit of Judaism? Or the Shiv Sena as fruits of Hinduism? If so, what are you left with? What ideology hasn’t been claimed by evil fanatics and perverted? I have met beautiful people from many backgrounds and some ugly ones too. Is it the background fault or the psychosis of the person himself?To close, I’d like to remind you of the points I hope you’ll address in your next response:1. Do you acknowledge the existence of divergent opinions in Islam? If so, can you please tell us why you refuse to mention these scholars who REJECT the apostasy law?2. Do you acknowledge that the Quran has a provision for people who inherit God’s revelation but no uphold it? If so, why do you continue to associate Quranic teachings with the acts of Muslims?3. What do you mean by ‘virtually every Muslim country’ in numerical terms? Kindly provide evidence to show the ‘overwhelming degree which you stand by?4. Do you acknowledge that the Quran calls itself ‘the criteria’? If so, please comment on the contradictory information which you have put forth from Sahih al-Bukhari and Abu Dawood?5. When the Quran calls to fight ‘al-kaafiroon’, who is it referring to?6. In your system of ethos – which you are employing to judge the Quran and Islam-is it not ethical for people to fight against those who fight them and to fight for people who are calling for help?7. You claim that there is ‘nothing even remotely from God in Islam’. This statement presupposes that you know what is close to God or Godly. Can you please expound for us what Godliness is?Many thanks for your time. I look forward to your answers.